Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The second amendment is an unlimited right, in which case anything that is an "arm" is allowed -- up through nuclear.
The second amendment is limited and therefore the court decides where to draw the line.
It's one or the other.
Ahhh, from quoting statistics and talking about all those numbers and graphs ,and touting your sources as fact, to speaking a personal opinion as absolute truth. lol, look at it this way, and this IS a fact. Many of us out here choose to be armed, and we carry our weapons LEGALLY most everywhere we go. Exeptions being ( here in NV anyway) banks, Federal buildings, and Casinos. There ya go. "Acceptble Restrictions". Like it or not we carry a weapon for defensive purposes. Ok, so you don't like it. Like we care. Oh, you may howl in protest and point at numbers ( that mean nothing , by the way) wring your hands and attempt to lift yourself above all we "neatherthals". But here we are, armed and ready. Oh my, LMAO, how DARE we have the audacity to question so lofty a personage as yourself. Can't we SEE that you are right? Ahhh, no.. What I believe is that it takes a bit of audacity to question US. Especially if the person doing the questioning has never been there and done that. I refer you to my earlier post, (which you did not answer) when I said that if and when you have had to defend yourself against an attacker with lethal force, and STILL have the same view as now, I will be inclined to take your "arguements" more seriously. Until that time I give them all the credance they deserve.
the quotes I gave you were from the very authors of the constitution. I would think they the best source to go to when trying to see what THEY wrote, giving me quotes that are derived several hundred years later is like me going to a Modern computer programmer and asking about how to program punch cards for a machine created in the 50's instead of looking up the darn manual.
Mine are from the guys who actually define the rules.
Ahhh, from quoting statistics and talking about all those numbers and graphs ,and touting your sources as fact, to speaking a personal opinion as absolute truth. lol, look at it this way, and this IS a fact. Many of us out here choose to be armed, and we carry our weapons LEGALLY most everywhere we go. Exeptions being ( here in NV anyway) banks, Federal buildings, and Casinos. There ya go. "Acceptble Restrictions". Like it or not we carry a weapon for defensive purposes. Ok, so you don't like it. Like we care. Oh, you may howl in protest and point at numbers ( that mean nothing , by the way) wring your hands and attempt to lift yourself above all we "neatherthals". But here we are, armed and ready. Oh my, LMAO, how DARE we have the audacity to question so lofty a personage as yourself. Can't we SEE that you are right? Ahhh, no.. What I believe is that it takes a bit of audacity to question US. Especially if the person doing the questioning has never been there and done that. I refer you to my earlier post, (which you did not answer) when I said that if and when you have had to defend yourself against an attacker with lethal force, and STILL have the same view as now, I will be inclined to take your "arguements" more seriously. Until that time I give them all the credance they deserve.
Oh so even in Nevada the Second Ammendment is limited. Thanks for the endorsement.
Mine are from the guys who actually define the rules.
I don't really give a rat's butt what the Supreme Court says, they're just government thugs who legislate from the bench and try to rule such that they slowly take away our rights while minimizing public outcry and outrage.
They did nothing to overthrow the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, or the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, they simply struck down one very radical and oppressive regulation in a locality that is still run by a corrupt police department where the de facto situation will be continued denial (or at least serious infringement) of the rights' of citizens.
The Supreme Court doesn't like to rock the boat, at least not too hard, not too often.
As for what they say, I could really care less. If tomorrow they said that I didn't have the right to pray except in my house, because it might upset people, I'd take it as a declaration of war. They won't do that, as it would rock the boat.
They're not a pro-gun court, they're a pro "keep the peace" court. They're going to leave the Second Amendment issue for now, and let gun rights be gradually eroded by executive orders, acts of Congress, as well as state and city governments. They had their chance to strike a huge blow and shatter dozens of unconstitutional laws, but they let it go, electing to mostly dodge the issue. All they did was overturn a very restrictive law in one city.
Certain speech is restricted, certain religious rites are restricted, and certain arms are restricted. Rights aren't absolute.
Speech that harms someone else is restricted. I completely understand. Religious practices that harm animals (I haven't checked but I'm sure my local PD would get calls if I sacrificed a cow in my back yard) or other people (I just watched Big Love on HBO). How is my owning a large weapon harming someone? I might use it to do bad things? We're back to the innocent until proven guilty.
I've seen you mention the nuclear bomb. First, it's a bomb. Covered under the ATF explosives laws. Second, only a select few private citizens in the world have the money to purchase one. If they wanted to, I'm not sure the US .gov would be willing to sell. Black market? Just owning it is not safe for others. See my infringment of other's rights mentioned above.
Basically it boils down to we shouldn't be allowed to own certain guns because of what we MIGHT do with them. It's a free country and with freedom come certain risks. Because of the 8th, I have to protect myself and my family. Here in the Memphis area 80% of the crime is committed by people already out on bail or parole. Because someone decided that "do the crime then do the time" hurt the self esteem of the criminal I have to take a risk every time I go into the city. I don't think it is cruel or unusual to punish someone for committing a crime.
You mention that in Nevada the 2nd is 'restricted' because you can't carry in a Casino. That is not stopping me from owning nor carrying a gun. I then choose not to frequent a business that restricts weapons. That is my decision. If enough people stop going because of this, then they will change their mind. There are armed police in federal buildings. If I'm not packing, at least someone is.
The laws should be simple like this. "You can carry a gun except into businesses where they don't want them. Don't do stupid things with your gun." I'm a grown man. I don't need the .gov acting as a parent for me. Then again, I don't think there needs to be a seat belt law either. If you are too stupid to wear one, then you get what you deserve. The heard needs thinning anyway.
Mine are from the guys who actually define the rules.
The same ones that said you are denying civil rights to the people of your city? Actually to everybody since we all have this right but are forbidden entirely from excercising it there.
Whens the next court date?
Its funny, you defended your illegal law before the SC heard the case, they struck it down & you bozo's reworded it but left the restrictions intact & you are defending it again. You are quite amusing, questioning others intelligence when you arent smart enough to realize how rediculous you & those you pay really are.
Some folks wouldn't see the truth if it was eating them, one leg at a time, yes?
A friend of mine forwarded this to me yesterday. Speaks for itself.
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under. It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now available:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm was legal.
(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)
While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'
This story of well intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.
But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Americans may want to take note before it's too late!
So! I assume rl's endless protestations and "rabbit-holing" responses are not about gun ownership. He's FOR criminals, FOR assaults on law-abiding citizenry, FOR huge increases in rapes, murders, thefts, car=jackings, etc. He's FOR lawlessness. perhap;s HE should spend some time incarcerated, just so as to get better acquainted with the element he so appreciates?
it sounds more like RL is fore anarchy than lawlessness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. What I believe is that it takes a bit of audacity to question US. Especially if the person doing the questioning has never been there and done that. I refer you to my earlier post, (which you did not answer) when I said that if and when you have had to defend yourself against an attacker with lethal force, and STILL have the same view as now, I will be inclined to take your "arguements" more seriously. Until that time I give them all the credance they deserve.
"Is HE still here?"
